Metaphor in Sign Languages.

Irit Meir,Ariel Cohen

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01025

Irit Meir, Ariel Cohen

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01025

Copy DOI

Abstract

Metaphor abounds in both sign and spoken languages. However, in sign languages, languages in the visual-manual modality, metaphors work a bit differently than they do in spoken languages. In this paper we explore some of the ways in which metaphors in sign languages differ from metaphors in spoken languages. We address three differences: (a) Some metaphors are very common in spoken languages yet are infelicitous in sign languages; (b) Body-part terms are possible in very specific types of metaphors in sign languages, but are not so restricted in spoken languages; (c) Similes in some sign languages are dispreferred in predicative positions in which metaphors are fine, in contrast to spoken languages where both can appear in these environments. We argue that these differences can be explained by two seemingly unrelated principles: the Double Mapping Constraint (Meir, 2010), which accounts for the interaction between metaphor and iconicity in languages, and Croft’s (2003) constraint regarding the autonomy and dependency of elements in metaphorical constructions. We further argue that the study of metaphor in the signed modality offers novel insights concerning the nature of metaphor in general, and the role of figurative speech in language.

Highlights

Metaphor, the use of an item from one semantic domain in a different semantic domain in order to characterize the latter in terms of the former, is pervasive in human language and thought
Metaphor is not restricted to language; it is used in other domains of human cognition as well, such as mathematics (Nunez, 2008), visual art (Kennedy, 1982, 2008; Forceville, 2008), graphics, and music (Zbikowski, 2008)
In the current paper we explore some of the ways in which metaphors in sign languages differ from metaphors in spoken languages, and suggest explanations to these differences

Summary

INTRODUCTION

The use of an item from one semantic domain in a different semantic domain in order to characterize the latter in terms of the former, is pervasive in human language and thought. Meir attributes the unavailability of metaphorical interpretation to the iconicity of the sign EAT in these languages, whose form represents putting something into the agent’s mouth (Figure 1 above) She suggests that the iconicity of this sign clashes with the shifts in meaning that take place in these metaphorical extensions. The DMC can account for other metaphors that are possible in many spoken languages but not in sign languages, such as Time flies, He climbed the ladder of success, the project took off In each of these expressions, the concept undergoing metaphorical extension is represented in ISL and ASL by an iconic sign, whose form highlights aspects of the meaning that should be bleached in the metaphor. Holding an object (food) Mouth of eater Putting food into mouth Consumption of food

X X Consumption of object

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK

A Final Word